Rajesh Gupta Alias Monu vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Gupta, is challenging orders passed by customs authorities and appellate tribunals. Initially, a penalty of ₹1,02,50,000/- was imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs on 08.12.2021, following the seizure of poppy seeds and black pepper. The petitioner's appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was rejected for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequent appeals to the CESTAT and writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court, including a Special Appeal, were also dismissed on similar grounds of non-maintainability due to the failure to make the pre-deposit. The petitioner then filed an application for restoration of his appeal before the CESTAT, which was also dismissed on 02.07.2024, leading to the present writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had exhausted his remedies and had unsuccessfully agitated his grievances regarding the non-entertainment of appeals due to the failure to make the pre-deposit before the Allahabad High Court. The Court found no grounds to entertain the constitutional challenge to Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, in the given facts. The Court explicitly stated that the petitioner was seeking to re-agitate issues already decided and that this constituted forum shopping, which could not be countenanced. The ratio decidendi is that repeated litigation on the same grounds after exhausting statutory remedies and failing in multiple forums, including High Courts, amounts to abuse of process and forum shopping, and constitutional challenges raised in such a context may not be entertained.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's appeals before the CESTAT were maintainable without fulfilling the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962? The petitioner argued that he had deposited amounts exceeding 10% of the penalty, as per Section 129E, and sought restoration of his application. He also prayed for the release of goods and attached accounts. The petitioner further challenged the constitutional validity of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, contending it violates fundamental rights. The respondents (Union of India and others) did not present any arguments.